Believe it or not, I think we’re saying a lot of the same things. There’s nothing wrong with drone attacks per se, but they have to be for a clear cut military purpose. Just killing the enemy isn’t enough, even though drone attacks are clearly doing that.
There has to be a military objective. What’s the end game here? It should be compete and total enemy defeat. You could argue it’s OK to kill 10,000 civilians to kill one enemy soldier in their midst. Unless that soldier is very, very important and his death directly relates to achieving victory, then the attack isn’t justified.
That’s what I’m saying. I don’t know the intelligence behind these drone attacks, but I’m definitely disturbed by them. For one, how do we know our intelligence sources aren’t using US drones for nefarious purposes. Are these people really our enemies, or is there something else going on? For another, we’re apparently killing a lot of civilians in the process.
If this was necessary to victory, then drone attacks might be justified, but what are the victory conditions for this war on terrorism? How do we win? Or, are secretive drone attacks just another aspect of US foreign policy from here on out?
Deliberately killing non-involved civilians is always counterproductive. Our targetting of the enemy in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. has been very good, based on good real time intelligence.
You have to go to Bill Roggio’s “Long War Blog” site to read and see about our programs. Same for “Weaselzippers” great film collections from both Iraq and Afghanistan.
The films from the helicopters are the best because you often get live-time talk between the pilots/gunners and those doing the targetting.
We are overly cautious in some cases, but that is okay.
Just because someone isn’t carrying a weapon at one point in time, in a battleground, doesn’t mean that he’s not going to carry one down the next block. The same for planting bombs in roads. Our ROE’s say you can’t kill an unarmed enemy eventhough he has committed an act of war against you. BULLSHIT.
Only where you can determine that the Taliban is holding his family hostage, forcing the adult or child to plant a bomb in order to save them, should a “no shoot” order be given. I’d leave the rest of the decision to those on the ground or in the air. We’ve lost too many men and women by not taking out the bomb-planters.
We have also lost the psychological warfare advantage of “instant death” to those who plant the bombs. That is one key advantage we cannot afford to lose.
Our electronic/photographic intelligence is very good in most places, even Afghanistan.
Nobody is going to win by conquering Afghanistan in the traditional sense though the Taliban has the numbers to seize enough territory and small towns and villages to set up a parallel government, much like they did in the 1990’s before the Northern Alliance kicked them out of many areas.
What you are not seeing now are combat reports from Afghanistan. I don’t see the ISAF reports that used to be posted at FR. At least they gave us some insight into combat ops on the ground.
The news media has completely abandoned combat reporting except when a mistake is made
I want to know how many Taliban bomb “facilitators” have been killed or captured; the same for “bomb planters”; how many Taliban “cell” leaders have been killed or captured, etc.
That is the grinding out war that can drive an enemy out of an area if done right.
Nothing on Afghan military forces engaging the enemy. Some good units are but you won’t see reports about them in the MSM, only at Roggio’s site or writings by Michael Yon.
Selective drone attacks will be part of American military tactics from now on. Trust me. They work. Also, they are now, if our politicians don’t even recognize it, part of the military’s “Long Arm” reach strategy, based on President Monroe’s attacks on the Libyan pirates (Tripoli), as well as on U.S. law enforcement tactics in the 1800’s (and well into the 1900’s).
That tactic is the basis for the saying “You can run, but you can’t hide, you can’t escape, you can only surrender or die.”
It is also one of the underpinings of the function of Interpol - more eyes and ears around the world to locate, track and aid in the capture of international criminals and fugitives.
The war on terrorism is going to be a decades long one, but it can be speeded up by taking out key enemy targets as soon as the become designated/located and marked.
The Israelis have been fighting terrorism long before Israel became a state, starting with the Arab raiders of Jewish farming settlements in British Palestine Mandate, from the 1920’s till today.
Even though they suffer daily attacks, their success in defeating them is extraordinarily high. However, at various times in the past, US presidents and their high-ranking advisors have cut-off or suspended US-Israeli intelligence joint operations and sharing.
If you have noticed, the Israelis haven’t bombed any milk factories in the past. We have.
In 1972, I created and coedited the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee study “The Human Cost of Communism In Vietnam”, 1972 (essentially Volume 1 of 3 on the subject). I did a lot of book research as well as first-hand research on the subject, as well as bringing in the best in the field to contribute to the study.
I learned a lot back during the Vietnam war and have not stopped learning, but one thing always remains the same, the enemy will continue to attack you until you destroy him or inflict enough damage to make all but the most die-hard fanatics leave the fight. Then you track them down to the ends of the earth and kill them.
The British did this to the Mau Maus, the Communists in the Malaya war and the US/Philippinos did it to the Huks. Those wars were won because the will was there to do so, and the tactics used were devastating.
Back then there were real military leaders, not the puffs we have today in Dempsey and others.
We are at war. Once we all realize that and what kind of war it is, the methods for fighting will be also realized, and implemented. Then you will be on the long rode to victory.